Member of the Funny Name Club

July 25, 2005

Don't Make Me Whip Dis Out

Let me see.

Talking about conditions under which WMD might be used is out; talking about using WMD in the event that one or more is used on us is definitely out. And talking about potential targets of WMD in the event that one or more is used on us is mega-out and bigoted to boot.

So why don't we just dismantle them all right now?

And if a dirty bomb is smuggled over one of the borders by Islamists and is detonated, subjecting hundreds of thousands to millions of Americans to one of the most horrible deaths imaginable, along with rendering an area of our country uninhabitable for X-amount of centuries/millennia, I’ll urge whatever government officials that are left to think hard and long before making the Islamists and their co-religionists angry/even angrier—assuming that the target city isn’t LA.

After all, I and my fellow citizens would still have something left to lose. Possibly.

No, I’m not serious.

I don’t WANT us to have to use any type of WMD on anyone. Twenty plus years ago when I used to load nuclear missiles onto fighter-bomber aircraft in the Air Force, I used to hope the same thing. But I still went to work everyday and I still reenlisted several times; and even though I was no longer a weapons loader, I was still most keenly aware of the ultimate expression of military might of our Armed Forces. And though I questioned my role in those forces at one time way back then, I had that question answered by a set of terrorists, no less: one day it might be necessary.

I didn’t want to bring this particular part of my background up again. It’s too much like playing the “chickenhawk” card, as Froggy said in the comments to this post. However, when I read some of the posts and columns which excoriate anyone who even considers naming a possible WMD target of the US in the wake of a WMD attack on us and I notice the dripping condescension from many of the various “arguments” against, I am reminded that (some) civilians forget the arsenal of death on which this country is sitting and what it is for: deterrence, either before or after. The purpose of the arsenal is for making an enemy think twice about attacking us either the first or the second time. Anything other purpose is secondary--if it exists at all--such as whether a nuking will make a given group hate us more or not.

Otherwise, why bother to maintain it?

To have someone say ‘don’t talk about it’ and tell me that I am ‘irresponsible’ for doing so makes me wonder what planet they’ve been living on. Then I remember that I am the one who has spent most of my adult life on “another planet,” a planet on which anyone with functioning cognition knows what our military’s purpose is and what it is capable of, security clearance or no.

I think that the nutcases who would detonate a WMD on our soil should be reminded, not told, but reminded of what we have waiting for any enemy that would obliterate an American city. We can keep arguing about whether certain targets are strategic or not, but since this enemy isn’t organized in the nation-state government structure, that question is far from answered. And to assume that it’s never talked about in “polite” company outside of secure information access facilities is, as I said before, naïve.

Let’s hope, however, for enemy’s sake and ours that the question at hand is never answered.

33 Comments

I happen to agree with you on this point. We need to let the 'others' know what the response to a WMD attack on this country would be.

And our first response need not even be WMD. My first choice of response would not even require WMD or even conventional explosives.

In the event of a WMD attack in this country with claims of responsibility from Islam, we would only need to drop a small force of engineers into Isreal with a few bulldozers and remove a certain Mosque from on top of the Temple Mount.

Then in the ensuing uproar of international opinion we could just point out that that used to be the 'third' holiest site of Islam.

Reluctantly over time I have come to the conclusion of Wahabbism Delenda Est.

Good post Baldilocks. I actually don't disagree with you in concept: the purpose of our arsenal should make people think twice about attacking us. I would also agree that our arsenal can make a nation state (N. Korea, Pakistan etc.) think twice, or three or four times, about passing on nuclear materials to terrorists.

I think were I disagree with you is regarding the nature of the enemy and the function of deterrence. Unfortunately, our arsenal is not very effective against islamic terrorist cells. It's one thing to say to Pakistan, "if we catch you supplying terrorists with nuclear material or knowledge, we will take action". It's another to say to try to threaten a terrorist who would probably sacrifice Mecca to take out New York.

Finally, I don't think it is irresponsible for you to talk about this--it's your right as a citizen. I do think it is irresponsible for elected officials to talk about it when talking about it (in my opinion) serves absolutely no strategic value, and makes our position in the world much worse. Using these weapons against an islamic holy place is not realistic and would never happen. We may as well talk about blowing up the moon in retaliation. Not to sound like a broken record, but all it does is confirm people's worst fears about US power and does not serve our national interest in the first instance.

Juliette,
In 1953, IKE went to Korea and had already sent open messages to Chinese that if they did not get North Koreans to table he would nuke them in China. The Chinese volunteers had guns at their backs. Truman was asked to drop show bomb off Japan. We only have two and so they transmitted in open code that they had A-bomb with references to Einstein. In 1945 we fire bombed Japan and killed 90K up. It took two A-bombs to convine them.
James M. Barber

It may well be true that the individual islamic terrorists wouldn't be deterred by a threat to Mecca and/or Medina, since IMNSHO they aren't motivated by love for their own religion so much as they are by desire to kill us even if, or especially if they die in the successful attempt. What the publicly announced strategy of targeting the sacred spots of Islam, as well as the financial and cultural centers of the muslim world, such as Tehran and Riyadh would accomplish is get the hitherto off-limits royal family of Saudi Arabia to thinking that the spreading of Wahabbism is a dead end strategy. What was it about the cold war MAD strategy that deterred, given that the idea that the U.S. was a paper tiger was not a new concept? Two words: Hiroshima, Nagasaki. We are the only country who has ever opened that particular can of Whoop-Ass. Those who weren't inclined to take us seriously had to have thought "I don't know, those bastards just might do it again." A generation has passed while we haven't had to do it, and the lesson may need to be renewed. The Saudis have been too cozy with the idea that we wouldn't do that to them in any case. At the same time that we announce the Preemptive Sustained Yankee Conflagration, Holocaust, & Obituary strategy we start a crash program to drill in ANWR and eliminate all gas taxes. I'll leave that gas tax thing as an exercise for the economics student.

Little by little, supporters of keeping all our options on the table are being seen in the blogosphere.

Hugh Fitzgerald, commenting in Jihad Watch, favored a very firm approach to Islam. Without a doubt, his long and well argued list would limit Islam's ability to do us harm, but like many others, he suggested that the utter destruction of Mecca would bring about the wholesale rage of Muslims worldwide.

Hugh is a true scholar of Islam, and brooks no nonsense from Muslims, but his reluctance to keep the nuclear option wide open is one of the few times I have disagreed with him in no uncertain terms.

By this time, most of us know that Muslims are an angry lot, always blaming the other guy for their problems, always playing the oppressed victims of the West.

There is nothing the West does that can cause them to be angry, to cause outrage, or to cause violent demonstrations or to cause terrorist acts.

They are angry all the time,and simply await an excuse to show how angry they are.

Even if they accomplish their goal of world conquest, they will still be angry, and they will still commit acts of terrorism; Islam sucks their minds dry in childhood, and then brings them frustration, hostility, and anger until they die.

They will never stop their attacks on us; while we may be able to end it with the firm actions suggested by Hugh Fitzgerald, the nuclear option must remain on the table along with all the others.

"What the publicly announced strategy of targeting the sacred spots of Islam, as well as the financial and cultural centers of the muslim world, such as Tehran and Riyadh would accomplish is get the hitherto off-limits royal family of Saudi Arabia to thinking that the spreading of Wahabbism is a dead end strategy."

Steve,

But isn't that going to far? Why don't we just tell the Saudis that we are going to take down the House of Saud if they do not stop coddling islamo-fascists. What does threatening to nuke a religious site accomplish? And besides, clearly the threat is not credible, and it makes the US look like all bluster with no action. I have enough faith in my country to know that we would never commit an act of mass murder against millions of innocent civilians "to teach someone a lesson". We bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki because we had a specific goal in mind (the surrender of the Japanese) and because taking Tokyo may have been a deadlier option.

I keep repeating myself on this point, so I'll just read what other people have to say (hopefully I can resist the urge to comment back).

Any terrorists with an A-bomb capability should know that should one or several American cities be nuked that an aroused and furious American people would not rest until most of the Mid-East was smoking glass and Islamic terrorism only a bad memory.

You were a 462X0 muzzlehumper too? Remember the days when downloading and uploading only involved a jammer, a safety pin,a wrench, a bomb rack and a weapon? :D
On this topic, I don't believe the radio ramblings of a member of the House International Relations committee puts anymore options on the table than his critics take off the table. President Bush has the entire military arsenal at his disposal and has used them in response to 911 in Afghanistan and the gathering threat of a terrorist/WMD nexus in Iraq to deny our enemy strong footholds. The only way to destroy your enemy is to destroy all those things they hold in common, destroy their economies and they cease to exist. The first and last time nuclear weapons were the most efficient means of destroying an enemies economy was in Japan. The Allied forces broke an island-bound religious ideology with the threat of literally "bombing them back to the stone age" so that the Japanese culture ceased to exist. Estimates that a miilion allied troops were spared their lives by the use of nuclear weapons fail to account for the many millions more Japanese lives that were spared. Nuclear holocasut was a blessing upon Japan. Though I can only hazard a guess where nuclear weapons would serve so singularly and discretely in our WoT there are other options far worse. If we dare to consider destroying the Main Mosque of Islam as a form of retaliatory deterrence (I'd prefer a squadron w/escort of B-2 stealth bombers armed w/mini-nuke bunker busters at 3am Mecca time, shatter it to its footings) we can also dare to destroy any mosque in the world that was complicit in incitement if their national gov't refuses or fails to act. We can dare to consider any mosque a recruiting, training, arming, directing trojan horse in our midst whether or not they preach hate from its pulpit. We can dare to consider outlawing the public practice of Islam like we've outlawed the practice of cannibalism. Make Islam a type of murder, hunt them to extinction. The human heart can concieve of far worse retributions than a nuclear weapon can deliver.

I am reminded of something about WWII and the lack of gas attacks. This has been explained by many college professors that Hitler was gassed during WWI and therefore probably didn't use it in WWII. What a crock of Horse. . . (amazing how many on the left are ALWAYS giving the benefit of the doubt to the real bad guys, isn't it?)

The reality is that the Western allies were well prepared to respond in kind. THAT is deterrence that worked, not because Hitler cared one way or another; but because the German generals making decisions on tactics KNEW how we would respond in kind if they gas attacked us.

I will refer to these generals as 'borderline' cases. What I mean is that they were sitting on the fence, so to speak, as to whether or not to use gas attacks on us. By allowing these 'borderline' cases to know what we would do, they quickly choose which side of the fence to go to.

I believe that the same thing can be said about officials talking about nuclear options today. Such talk will probably have no effect on the I-want-my-72-virgins terrorist. BUT, maybe such talk will cause other 'borderline' cases to reconsider just how much help they want to give to any terrorist. Maybe such talk will cause a nuclear scientist in Pakistan who might be considering to 'help' Al Qaeda to reconsider his options.

As with anything, it is the 'borderline' cases that will need to be changed first before we can change the hardcore. And 'educating' them is not such a bad idea.

Those terrible weapons are there for a reason. At some point we have to think about the ultimate conditions under which they might be used. We don't have all this worked out already from the Cold War. The situation is different now. We need to think about it.

It seems people are trying to close this debate by stigmatising the opposition. I don't think that holds up. The stakes could get too big for us not to think about what might be necessary if worst came to worst.

What follows is unpleasant. I would like it if someone can point to fully adequate and convincing alternatives.

When civilised troops meet opponents of an exotic sort, as often happened in colonial wars, it is a matter of old doctrine (I think it's even in "Small Wars") that once you've decided you really must win and you don't much care how, it becomes your prime objective to destroy whatever the enemy holds most sacred. If the summit of Inca society is Atahualpa, then honour be dashed, Atahualpa must die. If the frenzied natives adore some sacred idol, seek it out and break it. If the Jewish rebels hold their land as guaranteed to them by their God and their Temple as sacred above all, destroy the Temple and kick them out of the land, and the next time Jewish armies go forth (if ever) it won't be a problem for the Roman Empire. If the enemy must keep control of their women, deprive them of that control. If the solidarity of the tribes is all, turn them against each other. If solidarity is maintained by a threat of killing apostates, then reward, protect and arm apostates. Do whatever it takes, but smash the sacred keystone of the system that makes your belligerent enemies fight. Till you do that, you are merely trading casualties, with you on a tight budget and the enemy likely not so.

Islam is a religion tied to places, in a way that Christianity is not (and promised earthly victory in a way that Christians are not), and as such it is potentially vulnerable, if seriously attacked. I'm not saying it couldn't recover from losing access to sacred sites for a long time or forever. Judaism did. But it was very changed: no Temple, no sacrifices for a start. Islam without Mecca, Medina and the Dome on the Rock would also be deeply changed. Allah's guarantees that Islam will subjugate the world by force, no matter how averse the infidels are, would be deeply shaken at least.

(On the other hand, if Muslim terrorists nuke us repeatedly and the holiest sites of Islam nevertheless remain untouchable, Allah's guarantees of world domination through violence will be vindicated, and the extent of our weakness and our impotence will be very clear. We all know what that leads to: increased fury, because there's nothing more satisfying to a certain mentality than going berserk on an opponent that don't fight back too hard or preferably at all.)

Of course it's nicer not to go to the Temple-smashing option if your don't have to. But after major American cities are hit by Muslim terrorist nuclear weapons, which is our starting point, we absolutely do have to win by fair means and foul. If attacking a religious site is a war crime - because the Europeans who devised these conventions did not have in mind a religious war like the one Islam is waging against us - that is - seriously - a pity, but still we must win.

If you decide that though this is the rule, and though nuclear fire has scorched American cities and you must win by fair means or foul, the enemy's sacred sites are still off limits because you believe that destroying them would only stimulate the enemy to more fury than we can bear, then effectively you've given up. You are too intimidated by the enemy really to fight him, even though he is fighting you in a total war, and even though if you don't find some targets that exceed your cities in value, so that you can escalate past your enemy, you are going to lose. You've surrendered your civilisation, not even to proven power but to a mere pessimistic assumption about the enemy's superior will.

If you decide that telling everybody to get away from Mecca and Medina because you are going to make irradiated rubble of them, and if you decide that blasting the Dome off the Rock is too dreadful to be thought of, but you are not going to quit and you are not going to make a response that might be militarily inadequate - OK, what are your targets? What all-out war-winning policy are they part of, and what military-historical evidence is there that this is how you put an end to fanatical exotic opposition? These are vital questions that can't be dodged.

(Something like "do a raid on Syria" is no answer. Nobody goes into battle or does terrorists acts screaming "Assad hu akhbar!!" That is not who or what our international religious enemies are fighting for.)

If, after American cities were burned with nuclear fire, the American response was just tit for tat strikes, killing some people because people had been killed, I could not approve of that. I might understand why it had happened, for example if the American President's family had been in one of the attacked cities, but I still could not agree with it.

But, since I don't have any adequate alternative policy or alternative physical military targets in mind, if the Americans responded to Muslim terrorist nuclear strikes by soberly trying to break up Islam as a conquering creed, I would just hope we won.

The odds would not be pretty, but I've understood all along that the enemy might get us, and no matter what, we have to try, we mustn't quit while we have a bullet or a breath left.

This is where you do the Winston Churchill speeches, with feeling and sincerity. And then you live up to them.

Well David, I'm not a religious man. Won't go to church unless I playing piano in a choir. And I consider myself more spiritual than anything. BUT if the time for Winston Churchill speeches arrive, and we have to live up to them, may the Almighty help us all.

Cause I hope that I never have to see or experience the sheer destructive force of a nuclear attack. I don't have any great fears (well, I get chills seeing centipedes) but nuclear attacks hit me in my soul. They are so permanent and so total. Talk about giving you pause.

The more I think on it the more I become convinced that nuclear fire on Medina and Mecca would be the only proper response to a nuclear attack on the US. (Other countries can fend for themselves in this matter.)

However, to do so would mean that we would have to clearly make it understood the the enemy is ISLAM as it exists today, otherwise why burn down your neighbor's house because some wasps built a nest in his eve and one came over and stung you. If we do not make that point then such an act would, in my opinion, just make us look like a maddened beast blindly lashing out.

Such a strike would demonstrate to ISLAM that allah ain't so grand and ain't so willing and I believe bring about a profound change, maybe for the good or maybe for the better. But then after a nuclear exchange what is "worse"?

A guess such a strike would change us also.

The only thing I cannot see my way out of is the terrible impact to our friends in the area resulting from the subsequent fallout.

Maybe the destruction of Medina and Mecca using a bunch of MOABS (do-able)and an underground nuclear detonation or two to minimize fallout (can we do that?)just to make the point.

T-Steel - oh yeah, this is very creepy stuff, very disturbing. Even if you define "bomb" as carefully as you can to minimise loss of life - and I think Michael's ideas with MOABs are great - this is stuff that gives me a sick feeling. I feel great about most of the things I think we should be doing (and sometimes are doing) to break up Islam as it is now - democracy, women's rights, freedom to change one's religion. All good stuff. But not this. If we get to this point, it's bad juju.

Then again, if we get to this point we're already looking at nuclear strikes on American cities by jihad fanatics who won't show any restraint, who will make things as bad as they can every time. At that point, terrible things have happened, and terrible things have to happen.

When we see how divided we already are, there is also the chance that America might be politically unworkable in the aftermath of such strikes, over a deep, fundamental difference of opinion on who is to blame and what to do. If half the country can't and won't be kept peaceful but must make war either on foreign enemies or if that is made impossible on the domestic enemies who make it impossible, and the other half sees the strikes as consequences of an insane, imperialist/Zionist/whatever policy that now has to be repudiated (along with those who have favoured it) for sheer survival, you have a bad situation.

I do not think that we can expect much subtlety from the people in power if that happens. I do not think it makes sense to expect people to devise a response based on some kind of national quotas if the nuclear terror team seems to be a typical jihadi mix, like eight Saudis, a few each of Jordanians, Pakistanis, and Syrians, and the odd Egyptian or other North Africans. People acting under tremendous pressure and in hast wouldn't have time to bother with these national-identity shell games. They might just use the political and physical weapons available, any way they could think of, to blot out threats and violence with greater violence.

Let's pray it never comes to that, even while we think about what we might have to do if our prayers were not answered.

What David Blue said, except that I don't think nukes are necessary if regular bombs would do, and perhaps we can give warning so they can get the people out of the way.

& yes, it's sick-making to even think we might need to do this BUT better to do it now, while it's still rhetorical. If we wait until we're hit, we'll be too upset to be reasonable. You think it's hard to discuss now? Wait until your grandmother is smoldering.

It's not a war on terror or a war on Islam; it's a war BY Islamofascists on everybody else. It's justified in their minds by their version of allah. So, we need to break allah's kneecaps. One step in that process is the taking out the five pillars of Islam and proving their god to be a false god.

Hideous. But I'd rather be hideous than see my children and children's children in burquas and chains - or sawn off at the neck.

Rather than either of the above, I'd like to see Islamofascists rethink the application of their religion.

In principle, I agree.... it is those dirty dog Islamofascists who are the real problem, but until mainline Islam (what ever that might be) wakes up and separates actively itself from Islamofasism we are at war with Islam, no matter how distastful the concept my be to Western civilization.

It's their choice to make.

And I am not at all confident of their ability to do so until something really bad happens, if ever.

I for one would like to know where all of you "don't ever use nukes, we have plenty of precision bombs so its not necessary" people get your info?

I've got news for you: we really don't keep this gi-normous stockpile of those things, certainly not enough to deal with the kind of warfare many of you suggest.

Each cruise missile costs around $3 - 5 million. We only keep about 1,000 when they are fully stocked and we are still replacing those used against Saddamn.

The stockpiles of the bunker buster bombs are even smaller and usage against Saddanm showed that they are of limited effectiveness against newer hardened bunkers.

I don't know if you remember but I heard a number of reports that we were running out of these after Iraq and Afghanistan and it takes years to replace all of them used.

Its the same problem with armored vehicles and personal armor. We just don't have enough and the cost of armoring up our military is enormous and it will take time.

I'm sure that these facts will give rise to a bunch of liberal blather about Bush being unprepared.

The simple fact is a good chunk of the Clinton surplus was created by replacing the vast military stockpiles of equipment and large ranks of personnel with fewer high tech weapons and systems. This saved the government billions but it has resulted in a very shallow military when compared to what we had in 1990.

There is one simple truth: the one weapon we have in abundance and whose usage is massively cost effective is the fusion bomb. Not to mention it has historically resulted in people surrendering to us very quickly.

I don't care if they hate us. Why the F*** is how people feel about anything become the end all of what is important?

According to the "appeasement/we are all guilty" crowd we are supposed to try to understand the Islamists feelings, to understand what motivates people to hate and try to soothe their wounded pride. A bunch of barbarous scumbags murder 3000 of our citizens and we got to engage in an Oprah moment???

The only feelings I want to induce in these Islamic rednecks is to make them piss blood due to fear (or radiation poisoning - either will do). Abject terror of annihilation worked in Japan and to a lessor extent Germany (where we dropped about a million bombs -which we actually had at the time!!).

Before you call me a monster, know I have walked thru the streets (and museums) of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I am PROUD of what we did there (I can hear the intake of offended breaths right now). The fact we didn't have to invade and kill most of the entire country in operations against suicidal insurgents (which would have made up a far larger percentage of the population than anything in Iraq!!) saved AT LEAST ONE MILLION of our soldiers and AT LEAST 20 MILLION Japanese.

We would have completely destroyed their culture. Instead we broke their spirit and showed them that their GOD (the Emperor) was nothing of the sort, as he could do nothing to stop them from being wiped out. They started the war, they butchered millions of people who didn't want to serve them and we didn't beat them by calling out Barbara Walters to help us to empathize with the average kamakaze or know the sensitive, artistic side of Hitler!!

That is why we should have nuked Mecca on September 12th and if anything else happens here we must nuke it IF WE WISH TO SURVIVE!!!

It is very simple. They believe they are destined to take the flag of Islam and plant it on the whole world. For the sake of the traitorous media people keep spouting the "its all because of Iraq". Well, we didn't have troops in Iraq on 911 and the neither did the Aussies when the Bali bombing occurred so that ain't the motivation for all of this. We didn't have troops in Saudi Arabia in the 1980's when terrorists blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut. If we keep backing away from them they will keep attacking us to drive us back proving to the undecided average Moslem that Jihad will work and they can all be kings. Then they will all join the Jihad (everyone loves a winner!!).

Allah ordered thru Mohammed that no land ever ruled by Moslems must ever be relinquished. Wake up Spain!! You belong to them, along with most of eastern and southern Europe. Allah promised thru Mohammed to the faithful that we would all be their slaves. ALLAH promised thru Mohammed that no one could harm what is revered in Mecca and ordered that all Moslems must take the Hajj to worship there at least once in their life. ALLAH has also ordered thru Mohammed that they conquer the world and that no infidel can stop them. If we turn Mecca into a 10 mile wide crater that is fatally radioactive for the next 1000 years then Mohammed was wrong and no true prophet of God can be wrong ever. Ergo, Mohammed is not a prophet.

Saudi Arabia and the Saudis are the nexus of this cancer and Mecca is the focus. They use the money we give them for oil to fund all of the cancer of the Islamist movement around the world. They are the head of the beast. If you cut off the head the beast dies. The world is safe. This choice must be made. Soon. They will never stop trying to conquer us until we destroy their belief in the infallibility and utter truth of their faith.

Religious fanatics can only thrive in a place where there is nothing that makes them have doubts about themselves or their faith. Break that and they can be dragged into the 21st century.

Wayne, settle down there now, you're not making much sense, and you kind of sound like a terrorist. We should kill a few million innocent people because you are pissed off? Or, is that we should nuke innocent people because we don't have enough precision bombs?

Please stop making up arguments that you think "liberals" use. Liberals want to kill terrorists too. You act like there is some weird coalition of democrats that want the terrorists to go into therapy or something. And, the mainstream "traitorous" media isn't saying "it's all because of Iraq". The last I checked, the New York Times was running editorials saying this had nothing to do with Iraq. Yeah, there's goofy people on the left that say stupid things, as there are goofy people on the right that say stupid things. I'm not going to say that every conservative thinks we had 9/11 coming because of our sinful ways because a couple of conservative evangelicals said something similar.

I absolutely know I think like a terrorist. My love for my wife and even more my faith in Christ are the ONLY things that keep me from doing Mcveigh-like to Hollywood, certain liberal politicians, or the ACLU.

It is because I regularly think like a terrorist that I understand what is going thru their minds. The ONLY difference between me and them is that MY GOD TOLD ME I'D GO TO HELL if I do to them what I want to.

I believe (and not for Him as he will hate this, but for the survival of our country) that we should have killed a few millions of them (Saudi Arabia) after 911 as a reminder of why screwing with us is a stupid thing and that we can hurt them worse than they can us. And I know we must massacre millions (or even all) of them if a WMD is used here.

I do understand them, Justin. Its you liberal idiots that don't, and you are going to get us killed with your stupid empathy. You can't put Islamists on Oprah or DR. Phil and solve this!!

The reason the cold war never turned hot was because the Russians were just as scared of us as we were them. As you might have noticed, some of this months London bombers had families and children WHO THEY WILLINGLY ABANDONED AND WERE WILLING TO SACRIFICE FOR THEIR FAITH IN THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF KILLING INFIDELS.

THESE ISLAMIST MORONS HAVE COMPLETE FAITH THAT KILLING US INFIDELS WILL GET GOD TO KISS THIER LITTLE BUTTS INSTEAD OF KICKING THEM STRAIGHT TO HELL. IN CASE YOU HAVE NOT READ IT, THEIR Q'URAN TELLS THEM THIS.

They aren't afraid of us. They think: number one that we are too weak (because of fools like you!!!) to smash them into oblivion, and number two that they have nothing to lose by murdering us. Their God is going to give them everything for killing us, dammit!!

That little difference is the reason that any real true Christians aren't like Al Qaeda. We know we will get whacked by HIM for this crap. Eric Rudolph (who is exactly the same as bin Laden) is going to Hell.

People like you, who think you can negotiate with Islamists are our greatest enemies. You ever read any history? Try looking up Neville Chamberlin sometime.

Someone (an Israeli, I think) once said that there would be no peace with the soldiers of Islam until they loved their children more than they hated us.

The only way to truly win this war is to make them fear for their children and to break their faith in a God that makes promises of paradise as a reward for killing.

I absolutely know I think like a terrorist. My love for my wife and even more my faith in Christ are the ONLY things that keep me from doing Mcveigh-like to Hollywood, certain liberal politicians, or the ACLU.

It is because I regularly think like a terrorist that I understand what is going thru their minds. The ONLY difference between me and them is that MY GOD TOLD ME I'D GO TO HELL if I do to them what I want to.

Wow, Wayne, I guess I have no response for that. You are lost to the dark side my brother.

"Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt. 5:28)

No Justin, I'm not lost to the dark side, at least not yet. But I very much understand what it means, and what the everyday battle is like to avoid giving in to that rage. That is why I believe they must be destroyed. If I did not have Him, with my rage I would definately need killing.

If someone had killed Hitler and his brown-shirts in the late '20's we could have avoided that particular exercise in mass butchery.

Like I said I have a complete grasp on what motivates them and it is only my faith that stands between people like me and them.

My God hates murder. Their God revels and swims in it. That is why I beiieve the God of Islam is Satan. Only Satan would tell you it is cool to kill anyone who refuses to submit to you.

If some of the things Juliette has posted about here recently turn out to are true and Al Qaeda has nukes in the US, you will see what happens after they go off. Not one Moslem will be left alive in the U.S. afterwards. H-Bombs will fall like rain on Islamic lands and AT LEAST ONE BILLION PEOPLE WILL BE INCINERATED. Every person who steps up to say "no we are guilty we must not respond, we deserved this" will be killed. The viscious anger of the survivors here will know no bounds.

Remember something, Justine. Those bombs of Osama bin Laden will go off in large cities full of "civilized people" like you. The people left here afterwards will be mostly pissed off, armed, Redstate, "flyover" people like me. This is something that you liberals have not even considered. You will be the ones doing most of the dying.

That is why we must break them. Break their faith before we have to incinerate them. If this happens the world, will be praying for global warming and whiney artistic types will be expendable, along with any ideas of social justice.

Justin, I know I am a sinner and I know I have hate in my heart. I also know what will happen in the hearts of those who are left behind if we let liberal idiots decide how to handle Islam. THe decent part of me wants to break their faith, not to slaughter them before an Atomic Reaper.

If those bombs go off we won't be human anymore. We will be enraged vengeful butchers who will not stop until we have drank the blood of our full portion of our rage. And you, Justin are a fool if you think this is not true.

The road to Hell on Earth will be paved thru the foolish deeds of those on the sensitive, enlightened left.

Appeasement only ensures the final price will be higher than it needed to be.

Meanwhile, Satan is laughing his head off on successfully getting one set to be murderous according to his perversion of the Bible and getting another set, as epitomized by Justin, to be suicidal by perverting their understanding of morality from the same Bible -- usually by getting them to sprout verses out of context.

That's why the true path to heaven seems so narrow, because Satan covered the rest of the scenery with a super-freeway quality blacktop that obliterates natural landmarks (morality/conscience) as far as the eye can see.

Satan wins by playing all sides of the religion game. All he cares about is getting as many sent to hell as possible as his clock winds down.